coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
4.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Veliko Tarnovo.
5.  The applicant worked as the medical director of a psychiatric hospital. In 1996 she was laid off. On 17 February 1997 she brought an action for unfair dismissal against the Ministry of Health.
6.  On 7 July 1999 the Sofia District Court found that the applicant's dismissal had been unlawful and restored her to her position. The Ministry of Health filed an appeal.
7.  The Sofia City Court, which examined the appeal, held hearings on 18 February, 10 March and 2 June 2000, with the next hearing being scheduled for 8 November 2000. On 13 June 2000 the applicant filed a complaint about delays (see paragraph 15 below). On 23 June 2000 the President of the Sofia Court of Appeal found that the complaint was well-founded and instructed the lower court to schedule the hearing earlier.
8.  The Sofia City Court held a hearing on 20 July 2000. On 15 September 2000 it gave a judgment, finding that the applicant's action against the Ministry of Health was inadmissible.
9.  On an appeal by the applicant, on 30 May 2002 the Supreme Court of Cassation quashed the Sofia City Court's judgment and remitted the case. The Sofia City Court gave a new judgment on 9 August 2004, upholding the Sofia District Court's judgment of 7 July 1999.
10.  On 23 December 2004 the Ministry of Health filed an appeal on points of law.
11.  On 20 June 2006, 4 July 2007 and 1 February 2008 the applicant filed requests with the Supreme Court of Cassation that the case be examined more expeditiously.
12.  The Supreme Court of Cassation held a hearing on 15 February 2008. In a judgment of 4 March 2008 it quashed the Sofia City Court's judgment of 9 August 2004 and remitted the case for new consideration.
13.  The Sofia City Court examined the case once again and in a judgment of 12 January 2009 upheld the Sofia District Court's judgment of 7 July 1999, finding the applicant's dismissal to be unlawful and reinstating her to her position.
14.  On 20 February 2009 the Ministry of Health lodged a new appeal on points of law. On 19 August 2009 the Supreme Court of Cassation declared it admissible. A hearing on the merits is scheduled for 17 November 2010.
5.  The applicant was born in 1975 and lives in Plovdiv.
6.  On 22 July 2000 the applicant and another person were charged with extortion. The investigation continued until 7 June 2001, when the prosecution filed an indictment against them with the Plovdiv Regional Court for extortion, illegal possession of firearms and handling of stolen goods.
7.  The Plovdiv Regional Court conducted seventeen hearings, which were scheduled at intervals of one to five months, with the two last hearings being scheduled at an interval of eight months. Four of the hearings were adjourned as the applicant or his counsel failed to attend, while another three were adjourned on request by the other accused or the victim.
8.  On 9 January 2006 the Plovdiv Regional Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to five years' imprisonment. No appeal was lodged against that judgment and it became final.
9.  The applicant was held in detention from 25 July 2000 to 5 November 2001 and then from 2 January to 6 October 2002, when he was released on bail.
10.  On 10 September 2003 the applicant failed to attend a court hearing. On 12 September 2003 he was arrested in another city under an arrest warrant issued in another set of proceedings several months earlier, after on 26 June 2003 he had been declared a fugitive.
11.  On 10 October 2003 the Plovdiv Regional Court ordered that the applicant be placed in detention because his absence at the hearing of 10 September 2003 had not been justified. On 5 November 2003 that decision was upheld by the Plovdiv Court of Appeal.
12.  The applicant's detention continued until 9 November 2005, when the Plovdiv Regional Court discontinued it, taking into account the fact that the applicant had been sentenced to a term of imprisonment in another set of criminal proceedings.
13.  The applicant requested release on six occasions between 5 November 2003 and 9 November 2005. The Plovdiv Regional Court and the Plovdiv Court of Appeal dismissed his requests and ensuing appeals finding that: 1) he had been charged with serious offences, and 2) there was a risk of him absconding or reoffending as there were other criminal proceedings pending against him and he had earlier convictions, and also because he had once failed to attend a hearing and had been declared a fugitive (see paragraph 10 above).
14.  The courts dismissed the applicant's argument that he had health problems, pointing out, on the basis of the opinion of medical doctors, that he could be treated adequately in prison. To another argument raised by the applicant, namely that his family was in a dire financial situation, the courts responded that the other members of the family, namely his mother and his brother, were capable of taking care of themselves. As to the argument that the applicant's detention had lasted too long, the courts responded that the case was already at the trial stage and that hearings were being scheduled at reasonable intervals.
3.  The applicants were born in 1973 and 1965, respectively, and live in Samsun and Ankara.
4.  On 17 October 2001 the applicant was discharged from his civil service post following his previous criminal conviction by a martial law court. The conviction had been finalised by the Military Court of Cassation's decision of 11 November 1997.
5.  On 4 January 2002 the applicant brought an action before the Samsun Administrative Court to annul the discharge order.
6.  On 5 June 2002 the Samsun Administrative Court rejected the applicant's request.
7.  On 7 February 2005 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the judgment of the Samsun Administrative Court. The written opinions of the public prosecutor and of the judge rapporteur (“tetkik hakimi”) concerning his appeal request were not communicated to the applicant.
8.  On 31 December 2007 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the applicant's request for rectification of its previous decision.
9.  On 11 January 2002 the applicant was discharged from his civil service post after a disciplinary decision. Criminal proceedings were also commenced against the applicant on the same grounds as those which had led to his discharge.
10.  On 15 March 2002 the applicant brought an action before the Ankara Administrative Court to annul the discharge order.
11.  On 25 June 2002 the Ankara Assize Court acquitted the applicant of the offences with which he had been charged. On 22 March 2004 the Court of Cassation upheld the applicant's acquittal.
12.  In the meantime, on 31 March 2003 the Ankara Administrative Court refused the applicant's request to annul the discharge order. Relying on Section 131 of the Law on Civil Servants (Law no. 657), the administrative court held that the applicant's acquittal of the criminal charges did not absolve him from the disciplinary sanction.
13.  On 26 April 2005 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the judgment of the Ankara Administrative Court. The written opinions of the public prosecutor and of the judge rapporteur concerning his appeal request were not communicated to the applicant.
14.  On 23 January 2008 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the applicant's rectification request. The final decision was served on the applicant on 4 March 2008.
5.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Nürnberg.
6.  On 2 October 1998 the applicant, who was then working at the Turkish Consulate in Nürnberg, was laid off for misconduct by his employer, the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
7.  On 18 December 1998 he lodged a case with the Ankara Administrative Court against the Ministry of Foreign Affairs for unfair dismissal and compensation.
8.  On 16 November 1999 the court dismissed the case.
9.  On 26 March 2002 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the judgment of 16 November 1999.
10.  On 18 May 2004 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the applicant's rectification request.
4.  The applicant was born in 1940 and lives in Warsaw.
5.  On 15 January 1999 the applicant lodged with the Warsaw District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) a counterclaim for payment against the “Adwokat” Housing Co-operative (Spółdzielnia Mieszkaniowa “Adwokat”). The proceedings for payment instituted by the housing co-operative had been pending since 10 October 1997.
6.  On 2 February 1999 the applicant lodged a motion for joinder of the cases.
7.  On 17 June 1999 the court held a hearing; however it did not give any decision on the applicant's motion.
8.  After three years and ten months, on 20 October 2002, the court gave a decision that the case should be examined separately in another set of proceedings and returned the statement of claim to the applicant because of procedural shortcomings. The applicant lodged an interlocutory appeal.
9.  On 30 January 2003 the Warsaw Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) quashed the first-instance decision and remitted the case.
10.  On an unspecified date the Warsaw District Court again returned the statement of claim to the applicant because of procedural shortcomings. The applicant lodged another interlocutory appeal.
11.  On 15 November 2005 the Warsaw Regional Court quashed the contested decision and remitted the case.
12.  Hearings scheduled for 25 January and 6 March 2008 were adjourned as another case had been given priority.
13.  On 12 May 2008 the Warsaw District Court gave a default judgment.
14.  On 9 June 2008 the court supplemented the judgment by ordering its immediate enforceability.
15.  On 30 June 2008 the defendant filed an objection (sprzeciw) against the default judgment.
16.  On 8 July 2008 the Warsaw District Court quashed the order of immediate enforceability.
17.  On 19 August, 30 September, 18 November, 16 December 2008 the Warsaw District Court held hearings. Hearings scheduled for 19 February and 2 April 2009 were adjourned due to the absence of one of the witnesses. On 26 June and 17 November 2009 the court held hearings.
18.  The case is still pending before the first-instance court.
19.  On 20 March 2008 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Warsaw Regional Court under section 5 of the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (Ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki) (“the 2004 Act”).
20.  The applicant sought a ruling that the length of the proceedings before the Warsaw District Court had been excessive and an award of just satisfaction in the amount of 10,000 Polish zlotys (PLN) (approx. 2,500 euros (EUR)).
21.  On 25 April 2008 the Warsaw Regional Court dismissed the complaint. The court did not analyse the conduct of the trial court. It limited its consideration to the applicant's conduct, namely to the fact that she had made use of her procedural rights, which, in the court's view, had led to delays in the proceedings.
5.  At the material time the applicants were the owners, executive directors, editors-in-chief, news directors and journalists of two weekly newspapers published in Turkey: Yedinci Gün and Toplumsal Demokrasi. The publication of these newspapers was suspended pursuant to section 6(5) of Law no. 3713 (the Prevention of Terrorism Act) by the Istanbul Assize Court on 12 and 5 January 2008, respectively, for a period of one month, on account of various news reports and articles. The impugned publications were mainly deemed to be propaganda in favour of a terrorist organisation, the PKK/KONGRA-GEL[1], and constituted an approval of crimes committed by that organisation and its members.
6.  Neither the applicants nor their representative participated in these ex parte procedures, and their written objections to the suspension orders were dismissed. Consequently, the orders were executed.
7.  The applicants, Ali Turgay and Hüseyin Aykol, the owner and the editor-in-chief, respectively, of Yedinci Gün, were prosecuted under sections 6(2) and 7(2) of Law no. 3713, as well as Articles 215 and 218 of the Criminal Code, for disseminating propaganda in favour of and praising crimes committed by the aforementioned organisation and its members, on account of various articles published in the said newspaper (case no. 2008/30).
8.  The applicant, Hüseyin Bektaş, the owner of Toplumsal Demokrasi, was similarly prosecuted under sections 6(2) and 7(2) of Law no. 3713 and Article 215 of the Criminal Code (case no. 2008/14).
9.  According to the information in the case file, these criminal proceedings are still pending at first instance.
5.  The applicant was born in 1969 and lives in Kranj.
6.  On 7 July 2001 the applicant was injured in a car accident. The motorist responsible for the accident had taken out insurance with the insurance company Zavarovalnica Maribor d.d.
7.  On 17 October 2001 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against the insurance company in the Kranj District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Kranju) seeking damages in the amount of 1,187,433.00 Slovenian tolars (approximately 4,966 euros) for the injuries sustained.
8.  Between 7 May 2002 and 20 September 2006 the applicant lodged four sets of preliminary written submissions.
9.  Between 4 September 2002 and 8 October 2004 he made three requests that a date be set for a hearing.
10.  Between 24 January and 21 September 2006 three hearings were held.
11.  On 23 February 2007 the applicant informed the first-instance court that he wished to withdraw the claim.
12.  On 30 March 2007 the Kranj District Court issued a decision that the proceedings be discontinued, following an out-of-court settlement between the parties.
5.  The applicant was born in 1972 and lives in Kaunas.
6.  In 1999 the applicant was granted a licence to keep a firearm.
7.  On 17 July 2002 the validity of the licence was extended.
8.  On 15 November 2002 the applicant submitted a request for a licence to keep another type of firearm.
9.  On 19 December 2002 police officials decided not to grant a new licence, given that on 13 December 2002 the applicant had been listed in an “operational records file” (policijos operatyvinė įskaita), that is, a database containing information gathered by law-enforcement authorities (see paragraphs 17-19 of the 'Relevant domestic law' below).
10.  On 16 April 2003 the police wrote to the applicant informing him that his licence to keep a pistol and a hunting rifle had been revoked. The applicant was informed that, pursuant to Article 38 of the Law on the Control of Guns and Ammunition, he was to hand in these firearms to the authorities and would receive money for them.
11.  The applicant instituted court proceedings challenging the entry of his name in the operational records file.
12.  On 25 September 2003 the Kaunas Regional Administrative Court dismissed his action. The decision was based on classified material submitted by the police and analysed by the judges without it being disclosed to the applicant. The court concluded that the applicant's listing in the operational records file had been lawful and reasoned, in view of the information about the applicant held by the police.
13.  The applicant appealed, complaining that he had had no access to the operational records file. He alleged that the court had not examined the classified evidence during the hearing, and that it had not assessed whether any parts of that information could have been disclosed to him.
14.  On 29 October 2003 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld that decision. The court noted, inter alia, that the impugned evidence was classified as a State secret and, although reviewed by the court, could not be disclosed to the applicant.
15.  The Government submitted that in July 2004, after the applicant had been granted a new firearms licence, his guns were returned to him.
5.  The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in Norrnäs.
6.  The applicant was born out of wedlock. His mother, grandmother and everyone around him always considered N.S. as his father. N.S. never married or had other children.
7.  On 1 October 1976 the Paternity Act came into force. The transitional provisions in the Implementing Act of the Paternity Act state that paternity proceedings with regard to a child born before the entry into force of the law had to be initiated within five years, that is, before 1 October 1981. Moreover, no claim could be examined after the death of the father. No such restrictions exist for children born after the entry into force of the Paternity Act.
8.  N.S. was placed under guardianship in 2000.
9.  In May 2002 the applicant requested the Korsholm District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten) to establish paternity. The court ordered DNA tests, which established with 99.4 % certainty that N.S. was the applicant's biological father.
10.  On 7 April 2003 the District Court dismissed the applicant's claim. It found that as the applicant was born before the entry into force of the Paternity Act, he should have lodged his claim within the time-limit of five years, that is, before 1 October 1981. As he had lodged his claim only in May 2002, his claim was time-barred.
11.  The applicant appealed to the Vasa Appeal Court (hovioikeus, hovrätten) claiming, inter alia, that the paternity of N.S. could not be established otherwise as, due to his state of health, he could no longer make a legally valid acknowledgement of paternity with respect to the applicant. This fact would place the applicant in a worse position vis-à-vis the children who were born after the entry into force of the Paternity Act. N.S's guardian supported the claim to have paternity established.
12.  N.S. died in March 2004 while the case was pending before the Appeal Court. The inventory of his estate was made in June 2004. The estate, worth some 140,500 euros, was divided among N.S.'s siblings and their heirs.
13.  On 8 July 2004 the Appeal Court dismissed the applicant's appeal.
14.  The applicant appealed to the Supreme Court (korkein oikeus, högsta domstolen), reiterating his grounds of appeal already presented before the Appeal Court.
15.  On 14 April 2005 the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal.
5.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Budapest.
6.  The applicant is a lawyer. In September 2004 the Buda Surroundings District Court ordered the search of her office, in application of section 149 subsections (4) and (5) of the Code on Criminal Procedure, and the seizure of documents concerning one of her clients, A.F., who had been suspected of having been engaged in illegal financial activities.
7.  On 20 October 2004 the police searched the applicant's office. The search lasted from 9.45 a.m. until 12.55 p.m. in the presence of a public prosecutor. The applicant herself did not arrive on the premises before 10.25 a.m.
8.  The Government claimed that until the applicant's arrival, another lawyer, Dr M., whose practice was in the neighbouring but entirely separate office, had been present. The applicant contended that Dr M. had not been present inside her office under search, nor had she represented her. According to the documents submitted, Dr M. was not formally appointed to defend the applicant's interests, nor did she sign the minutes of the search in such a capacity. Moreover, the parties' submissions diverged as to whether the police seized all the documents stored in the office or only those relating to A.F.
9.  Subsequently, the applicant complained about the allegedly unlawful search and the indiscriminate seizure of all documents found.
10.  On 5 November 2004 the Public Prosecutor's Office dismissed the applicant's complaint concerning the alleged unlawfulness of the search. The applicant appealed.
11.  On 25 November 2004 the District Court ordered the restoration of part of the documents, which were unrelated to the case of the suspect.
12.  On 19 May 2005 the Pest County Public Prosecutor's Office reversed the decision of 5 November 2004 and established that the search had been unlawful in that neither the applicant nor a representative had been present. It observed that Dr M. could not be considered a person appointed to represent the applicant's interests; she had not been appointed to this end by the authority in charge. The Office was however of the view that the lawfulness had been restored by virtue of the District Court's decision of 25 November 2004.
5.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Hajnówka.
6.  On 23 August 2000 the Bielsko Podlaskie District Court convicted the applicant of theft and sentenced him to 2 years' imprisonment. On 12 December 2000 the Białystok Regional Court upheld the first‑instance judgment.
7.  On 12 January 2001 the court granted the applicant's request to assign a legal-aid lawyer to the case for the purposes of filing a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court.
8.  In a letter to the applicant dated 7 February 2001 the Białystok Regional Court informed him that the legal‑aid lawyer had found no grounds on which to prepare a cassation appeal. The applicant was not informed of the further procedural steps available to him to lodge a cassation appeal.
9.  In reply to the applicant's subsequent three queries as to what his procedural situation was and whether there was any possibility for him to pursue the cassation proceedings, in particular by having his own draft of a cassation appeal signed by another legal-aid lawyer, on 19 February, 23 and 29 May 2001 the Regional Court stated that it was not for the court to oblige a legal‑aid lawyer to prepare a cassation appeal if he or she had refused to do so and that it was impossible for a lawyer to sign a cassation appeal drafted by the defendant.
6.  The applicants were born in 1967, 1961 and 1958 respectively and live in Strasbourg. They are officials of the Council of Europe
7.  By Presidential Decree no. 154/2007 of 18 August 2007, the Greek Parliament was dissolved and a general election was called for 16 September 2007.
8.  In a fax dated 10 September 2007 to the Greek Ambassador in France, the applicants, as permanent residents in France, expressed the wish to exercise their voting rights in France in the elections to be held on 16 September 2007.
9.  In his reply of 12 September 2007 the Ambassador, relying on the instructions and information provided by the Ministry of the Interior, stated as follows:
“[The Greek State] confirms its wish – expressed frequently at the institutional level – to enable Greek citizens resident abroad to vote at their place of residence. However, it is clear that this matter requires regulation by means of legislation which does not currently exist. In fact, such regulation could not be brought about by a simple administrative decision, given that special measures would be required for the setting-up of polling stations in Embassies and Consulates ... In the light of the above and despite the wish expressed by the State, your request concerning the forthcoming elections cannot be granted for objective reasons.”
10.  The general election took place on 16 September 2007. The applicants, who did not return to Greece, did not exercise their right to vote.